The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 16
ATTORNEY GENERAL

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 16.02

16.02 Appointment of person to act in case of disability of Attorney General.—In case of the disability of the Attorney General to perform any official duty devolving on him or her, by reason of interest or otherwise, the Governor or Attorney General of this state may appoint another person to perform such duty in the Attorney General’s stead.

History.—s. 3, ch. 2, 1845; RS 85a; GS 88; RGS 102; CGL 126; s. 46, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 16.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 16.02 on Casetext

Amendments to 16.02

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 16.02

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 16.02.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

VERDE MINERALS, LLC, v. BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL AND GAS COMPANY, LP,, 360 F. Supp. 3d 600 (S.D. Tex. 2019)

. . . Code § 16.02(1) ). . . .

SOOJUNG JANG, Ph. D. v. TRUSTEES OF ST. JOHNSBURY ACADEMY,, 331 F. Supp. 3d 312 (D. Vt. 2018)

. . . Ann. tit. 11A, § 16.02, which authorizes a shareholder of a corporation to inspect the records of the . . .

HEKMATI, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,, 278 F. Supp. 3d 145 (D.D.C. 2017)

. . . Stansell, 217 F.Supp.3d at 345 (same) For his pain and suffering while imprisoned, Hekmati suggests $16.02 . . . The Court sees no reason to deviate from this approach and therefore will award $16.02 million in pain . . .

IN RE STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, 872 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2017)

. . . that adopt the “difference in value” standard in Wells, MAI 4.02, and define "fair market value,” MAI 16.02 . . .

ZAMIR, v. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., 274 F. Supp. 3d 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . this news, the price of Defendant Bridgepoint’s stock fell 15.73%, or $2.99 per share, closing at $16.02 . . .

MICCIO, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC. USA, INC, s INC,, 224 F. Supp. 3d 200 (W.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . 889 F.Supp. 128, 133 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing 1 Michael Weinberger, New York Products Liability § 16.02 . . .

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. v. MAKARIOS- OREGON, LLC, LLC,, 210 F. Supp. 3d 1259 (D. Or. 2016)

. . . It contains two parts, Section 16.01 and Section 16.02. . . . In Section 16.02, this lease provides: The Tenant agrees that, prior to the expiration of this lease . . . The provisions of this Section 16.02 shall survive the expiration or any termination of this lease. . . . The final sentence in Section 16.02 in the Richmond Lease states, “The provisions of this Section 16.02 . . . Both the Severance provision in the Failing Lease and Section 16.02 in the Richmond Lease require the . . .

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. v. MAKARIOS- OREGON, LLC, LLC,, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1189 (D. Or. 2016)

. . . In § 16.02, the 1956 Richmond Lease states: The Tenant [Newberry] agrees that, pri- or to the expiration . . . The provisions of this Section 16.02 shall survive the expiration or any termination of this lease. 51 . . . The Concrete Slab Floors and Columns 12.In § 16.02, the 1956 Richmond Lease requires the tenant to render . . .

WAL- MART PUERTO RICO, INC. v. JUAN C. ZARAGOZA- GOMEZ,, 174 F. Supp. 3d 585 (D.P.R. 2016)

. . . Meanwhile, Wal-Mart PR estimates a regular income tax of only $16.02 million, resulting in an AMT of . . .

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. v. MAKARIOS- OREGON, LLC, LLC,, 180 F. Supp. 3d 745 (D. Or. 2016)

. . . In § 16.02, that lease stated: The Tenant agrees that, prior to the expiration of this lease or, in the . . . The provisions of this Section 16.02 shall survive the expiration or any termination of this lease. . . . do not comply with Ross’s obligations under the severance provision of the 1956 Failing Lease and § 16.02 . . .

LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC. LLC, LD Co., 816 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

. . . O’Donnell, 229 U.S. 1, 9-10, 33 S.Ct. 616, 57 L.Ed. 1041 (1913); 5 Chisum § 16.02[1]. . . . Patent rights are only .rights to exclude, not rights to practice.- See 5 Chisum § 16.02[1]. . . .

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a v. STOLLE,, 129 F. Supp. 3d 390 (E.D. Va. 2015)

. . . Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees ¶ 16.02[2][b], p. 16-15 (1984). . . .

In SKYPORT GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. v., 528 B.R. 297 (S.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . within the Province of Ontario provided that process shall be served personally as provided in Rule 16.02 . . . ; (4) Rule 16.02(m) provided that service shall be made on a partnership by leaving a copy of the document . . . I make a legal conclusion that 16.02 of the Ontario Civil Practice is the governing statute for serving . . .

JTEKT CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015)

. . . Final Results, assigning the following anti-dumping duty margins to plaintiffs: JTEKT, 19.76%; Ñachi, 16.02% . . .

BRAVERMAN KASKEY, P. C. v. TOIDZE,, 599 F. App'x 448 (3d Cir. 2015)

. . . P. 16.02. . . .

T. NOVELETSKY, W. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. L., 49 F. Supp. 3d 123 (D. Me. 2014)

. . . See Simmons, Zillman & Gregory, supra, § 16.02 n. 1. . . .

CELLPORT SYSTEMS, INC. v. PEIKER ACUSTIC GMBH CO. KG,, 762 F.3d 1016 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 16.02[2] (2010) (“One making, using or selling matter covered by a patent . . .

In H M OIL GAS, LLC, J. v. A. III,, 514 B.R. 790 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2014)

. . . Section 16.02 of the LLC Regulations state that: Actions by Members. . . . B] at § 16.02 (emphasis added). . . . the Court finds and concludes that Greenblatt is entitled to indemnification under LLC Regulations § 16.02 . . .

OPPERMAN, v. PATH, INC., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

. . . Pen.Code § 16.02(a); violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, Tex. . . . Pen.Code § 16.02(A), state analogues to the ECPA, suffer from the same deficiency as their federal claim . . .

CASSIE M. IRONS C. C. T. C. L. T. B. C. v. D. CHAFEE, M. E., 16 F. Supp. 3d 33 (D.R.I. 2014)

. . . In addition, COA provision PA-FC 16.02, which addresses recruitment and retention of foster families, . . .

RAY HALUCH GRAVEL COMPANY, v. CENTRAL PENSION FUND OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS AND PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS, 134 S. Ct. 773 (U.S. 2014)

. . . ."); 2 Derfner, supra, ¶ 16.02[2][b], at 16-15 ("[H]ours ... spent investigating facts specific to the . . .

RAY HALUCH GRAVEL COMPANY, v. CENTRAL PENSION FUND OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS AND PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS, 571 U.S. 177 (U.S. 2014)

. . . ."); 2 Derfner, supra, ¶ 16.02[2][b], at 16-15 ("[H]ours ... spent investigating facts specific to the . . .

PARKER, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. N. A., 987 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D. Utah 2013)

. . . Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees ¶ 16.02[5][a], at p. 16-28 (rev. ed. 2013) (emphasis in original; footnote . . .

ADVANCED AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 113 Fed. Cl. 265 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

. . . Chisum, CHI-SUM ON PATENTS, § 16.02[7] (Matthew Bender) (including infringement under § 271(f) of the . . .

WHITE, a L. v. MARSHALL ILSLEY CORPORATION,, 714 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . Plan § 16.02(b). . . . Plan § 16.02(f) (emphases added); see also § 16.02(b). . . . Plan § 16.02(f). . . .

AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY,, 934 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . Coverage Disputes § 16.02[b] (16th ed. 2013). . . .

UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ,, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . .79 / 18.39 = 4.30% _Report) = .79%_ 2008 19.21 - 17.02 = 2.19%_2,19 / 19.21 = 11.40%_ 2009 20.67% - 16.02% . . .

In HICKORY PRINTING GROUP, INC. T. Sr. v. Of LLC,, 479 B.R. 388 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2012)

. . . Barkley Clark & Barbara Clark, The Law of Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code ¶ 16.02 . . .

Jo ZEPHYR, v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., 873 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Specifically, Saxon states that Texas Penal Code § 16.02 permits recording where only one-party consents . . . In relevant part, Texas Penal Code § 16.02, "Unlawful Interception, Use, or Disclosure of Wire, Oral, . . . Section 16.02(b). . . . However, § 16.02(c) carves out the one party exception, stating that "[i]t is an affirmative defense . . .

P. ERRICO, v. STRYKER CORPORATION,, 281 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . “Preferred Stockholder Representative,” a designated representative who is authorized under Section 16.02 . . . A, § 16.02(c) (Dkt. No. 59)). . . . Even so, Plaintiffs contend, PFP can still sue in a representative capacity because Section 16.02 is . . .

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, v. ALVAREZ,, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 2933.51(B); Texas Penal Code § 16.02(b)(1), incorporating Tex.Code Crim. . . .

ESTEE LAUDER, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 815 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)

. . . ) are: (l)(a) Sets consisting of a sandwich made of beef, with or without cheese, in a bun (heading 16.02 . . . ), packaged with potato chips (French fries) (heading 20.04): Classification in heading 16.02. . . . and consisting, for example, of: — a can of shrimps (heading 16.05), a can of paté de foie (heading 16.02 . . .

ADVANCED SOFTWARE DESIGN CORPORATION A. v. FISERV, INC., 641 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 16.02[4][c] (2010). . . . .

COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL LTD. v. CASH STORE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 778 F. Supp. 2d 726 (N.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . Code § 16.02. . . .

QPRO INC. v. RTD QUALITY SERVICES USA, INC., 761 F. Supp. 2d 492 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . (Docket Entry No. 1, Ex. 1, ¶ 16.02). . . .

CARPENTERS SOUTHWEST ADMINISTRATIVE CORP. v. THOMAS ASSOCIATES MANUFACTURING, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Nev. 2010)

. . . . § 16.02. . . .

QPRO INC. v. RTD QUALITY SERVICES USA, INC., 718 F. Supp. 2d 817 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

. . . (Docket Entry No. 1, Ex. 1, ¶ 16.02). . . .

In MAK PETROLEUM, INC. L. v. Re, 424 B.R. 912 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . and generally provides that an “originating process shall be served personally as provided in rule 16.02 . . .

JTEKT CORPORATION U. S. A. v. UNITED STATES,, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . In the Final Results, Commerce assigned Ñachi a weighted average dumping margin of 16.02%. . . .

JTEKT KOYO U. S. A. v., 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1797 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)

. . . In the Final Results, Commerce assigned Ñachi a weighted average dumping margin of 16.02%. . . .

In KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION,, 350 F. App'x 775 (3d Cir. 2009)

. . . Section 16.02 of the Indenture subordinates each Subsidiary Guarantor’s obligations under the 1993 Guarantee . . .

In KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION,, 350 F. App'x 775 (3d Cir. 2009)

. . . Section 16.02 of the Indenture subordinates each Subsidiary Guarantor’s obligations under the 1993 Guarantee . . .

NANCE, v. WAYNE COUNTY,, 264 F.R.D. 331 (M.D. Tenn. 2009)

. . . See, Local Rule 16.01(e)(1) and 16.02(f)(2). . . .

LEVITON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. SHANGHAI MEIHAO ELECTRIC, INC., 613 F. Supp. 2d 670 (D. Md. 2009)

. . . See 1-16 Court Awarded Attorney Fees 16.02 (2008) (clerical and other non-legal chores are not properly . . .

In BROBECK, PHLEGER HARRISON, LLP,, 414 B.R. 627 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . (Plan, 16.02); The Administrator has full discretionary authority to administer and interpret the Plan . . .

PROCTER GAMBLE COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES, 570 F. Supp. 2d 972 (S.D. Ohio 2008)

. . . Cavanagh, Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies ¶ 16.02[1] (RIA 2008). . . .

METRO- GOLDWYN- MAYER STUDIOS, INC. v. GROKSTER, LTD. v. BV,, 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . See 5 Chisum, supra, § 16.02[3][C] & n. 27. . . . .

ARMITAGE v. DOLPHIN PLUMBING MECHANICAL, LLC., 510 F. Supp. 2d 763 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . 18, 2002 $1,950.00 $20.31 162.48 December 26, 2002 $ 735.00 $ 7.66 61.28 January 2, 2003 $1,537.50 $16.02 . . .

COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 445 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . Cavanagh, Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies ¶ 16.02[1] (2d ed.1997 & supp.2005). . . . .

COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 445 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . Cavanagh, Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies K 16.02[1] (2d ed.1997 & supp.2005). . . . .

EDLUND, v. SEAGULL TOWNHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 928 So. 2d 405 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . or lease said unit, upon the same conditions as are offered by the unit owner to a third person.... 16.02 . . .

AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO. v. ANIERO CONCRETE CO. INC. Co. A M. S. T. Co. s,, 404 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 2005)

. . . Carlin Contract, General Conditions § 16.02. . . . Id. § 16.01C; see also § 16.02. . . . .

VAN WELL NURSERY, INC. a LLC, a v. MONY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a A B a G. A No. Co. a N. Y. LLC. a f k a LLC, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (E.D. Wash. 2005)

. . . Chisum, Patents § 16.02[4] (1993). . . . Chisum, Patents § 16.02[4] (1993); Beidler v. . . .

E. ARNOLD, C. v. KRAUSE, INC. U. S. A., 232 F.R.D. 58 (W.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . 889 F.Supp. 128, 133 n. 7 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (citing 1 Michael Weinberger, New York Products Liability § 16.02 . . .

JOHN R. SAND GRAVEL COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 60 Fed. Cl. 230 (Fed. Cl. 2004)

. . . Wilson, 119 Mich. 406, 78 N.W. 338 (1899))); 2 Powell on Real Property, supra, § 16.02[3][a], at 16-13 . . .

In FULTON BELLOWS COMPONENTS, INC. f k a JRGACQ, 307 B.R. 896 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004)

. . . This does not apply to a shortage of wages. 16.02 Such complaint shall first be taken up with the Work . . .

LEARNING CURVE TOYS, INCORPORATED, v. PLAYWOOD TOYS, INCORPORATED, v., 342 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2003)

. . . Upchurch, Intellectual Property Litigation Guide: Patents & Trade Secrets § 16.02, at 16-17 to 16-18 . . .

In R. PETERSEN, a k a R. v. R. a k a R., 296 B.R. 766 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2003)

. . . incurred on billing dates as follows: February 7, 1998 — $5.70, $52.68 and $66.43; March 7, 1998 — $16.02 . . .

E. PERILSTEIN v. UNITED GLASS CORPORATION, 213 F.R.D. 252 (E.D. Pa. 2003)

. . . Both states adopted this language from Section 16.02(e) of the Model Business Corporation Act (“MBCA” . . . ), whose Official Comment explains it in these terms: Section 16.02(e) provides that the right of inspection . . . Section 16.02(e) simply preserves whatever independent right of inspection exists under these sources . . . Ad § 16.02 cmt.4 (1985). . . . Thus, the effect of Georgia and Kentucky’s adoption of MBCA § 16.02(e) is simply that we must perform . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. AISENBERG J., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . Wolfe, Court Awarded Attorney Fees § 16.02 (1998) (summarizing pertinent cases). . . .

DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. OZ OPTICS LIMITED,, 218 F. Supp. 2d 653 (D.N.J. 2002)

. . . requires that originating process (i.e., the summons and complaint) shall be served personally under Rule 16.02 . . . Rule 16.02(1)(c) provides, as to personal service on a corporation that is not a municipality, that such . . . Such service clearly complied with Rule 16.02(l)(c). . . .

In GREATER MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. O v., 282 B.R. 496 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . Rule 16.01(1) provides, “... an originating process shall be served personally as provided in Rule 16.02 . . . Rule 16.02(l)(a) provides, “... where a document is to be served personally, the service shall be made . . . Rule 16.02(l)(e) states a complaint may be personally served upon a corporation by serving a copy upon . . .

SYNAPTIC PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, v. MDS PANLABS, INC., 265 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D.N.J. 2002)

. . . Chisum, Chisum On Patents § 16.02[6][d][iv] (1978). . . .

LUMMUS GLOBAL AMAZONAS, S. A. v. AGUAYTIA ENERGY DEL PERU, S. R. LTDA., 256 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D. Tex. 2002)

. . . Section 16.02 of the Agreement provided that the contract deadlines could be adjusted as: a result of . . . and (2) that the Company Delay actually impaired LGA’s ability to meet the deadlines under Section 16.02 . . .

W. YOUNG, v. HARRISON Q., 284 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2002)

. . . Rohan, Powell on Real Property § 16.02[3][ii], at 16-29 (Michael A. . . .

STAR SCIENTIFIC INC. v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 174 F. Supp. 2d 388 (D. Md. 2001)

. . . offer for sale, selling, or importing ... for these purposes that product....’” 5 Chisum on Patents § 16.02 . . .

MROSEK, v. KRAATZ,, 178 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Conn. 2001)

. . . EE, § 16.02. . . .

NATIONAL DATA CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES, v. THE UNITED STATES,, 50 Fed. Cl. 24 (Fed. Cl. 2001)

. . . Powell, Powell on Real Property § 16.02[4] (Michael Allan Wolf ed., 2001) [hereinafter Powell]. . . . Powell, § 16.02[4]. . . .

WRENCH LLC, a v. TACO BELL CORP., 256 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . See 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 16.02 at 16-5 to 16-9. . . . See 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 16.02 at 16-5; § 16.08[B] at 16-60. . . .

BARTNICKI v. VOPPER, WILLIAMS,, 532 U.S. 514 (U.S. 2001)

. . . . §16.02 (Supp. 2001); Utah Code Ann. §77-23a-4 (1982); Va. Code Ann. §19.2-62 (1995); W. Va. . . .

HEATHMOUNT A. E. CORP. v. TECHNODOME. COM,, 106 F. Supp. 2d 860 (E.D. Va. 2000)

. . . P. 16.02(l)(a). . . .

I. BOSTIC, v. AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INCORPORATED,, 87 F. Supp. 2d 611 (S.D.W. Va. 2000)

. . . Derfner & Wolf, supra ¶ 16.02[7] (“Where the records submitted by the fee movant are found to be inadequate . . . Accordingly, it is appropriate to compensate the student hours. 2 Derfner & Wolf, supra ¶ 16.02[2][g] . . .

A. BOEHNER, v. A. McDERMOTT,, 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999)

. . . . §§ 16.02, 16.05 (West 1994); Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-23a-4, 77-23a-11 (1994); Va.Code Ann. §§ 19.2-62, . . .

QUALITY TUBING, INC. v. PRECISION TUBE HOLDINGS CORP., 75 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D. Tex. 1999)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 16.02[1], at 16-9 (1998). . . .

FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE BOARD v. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK, 527 U.S. 627 (U.S. 1999)

. . . Chisum, Patents § 16.02[2], p. 16-31 (rev. ed. 1998) (“ ‘It is, of course, elementary, that an infringement . . .

J. LAWRENCE D. v. XEROX CORPORATION, M., 56 F. Supp. 2d 442 (D.N.J. 1999)

. . . Xerox ESOP at 43, Article 16.02. . . . .

FERRIS, v. COUNTY OF KENNEBEC,, 44 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Me. 1999)

. . . Zillman et al., Maine Tort Law § 16.02, at 5 & n. 19 (1994), which permit a claim for joint and several . . .

SYSTEMS, INC. v. AAROTECH LABORATORIES, INC. C., 160 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

. . . Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 16.02[5][g], at 16-59 (1998) (“Chisum”). . . . See Chisum § 16.02[5][g], at 16-59 n. 33 (suggesting that, in interpreting an offer to sell under § 271 . . .

Dr. ROBINSON, v. CITY OF EDMOND, a, 160 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 1998)

. . . Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees, ¶ 16.02[8][b] (1997) (discussing cases that have held “the vehemence . . .

v. Co. Co., 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 852 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)

. . . Procedure in Ontario provides that “[a]n originating process shall be served personally as provided in rule 16.02 . . . Rule 16.02(1) states that where a document is to be served personally on an individual, the service shall . . .

UNITED STATES v. ISLIP, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)

. . . Procedure in Ontario provides that "[a]n originating process shall be served personally as provided in rule 16.02 . . . Rule 16.02(1) states that where a document is to be served personally on an individual, the service shall . . .

M. ROSARIO- DIAZ, v. GONZALEZ, M. ROSARIO- DIAZ, v. DIAZ ORTIZ,, 140 F.3d 312 (1st Cir. 1998)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 16.02, at 16-22 (3d ed.1997). . . .

K. NILSSEN, v. MOTOROLA, INC., 963 F. Supp. 664 (N.D. Ill. 1997)

. . . other sources” (2 Gregory Upchurch, Intellectual Property Litigation Guide: Patents & Trade Secrets § 16.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SEITZ, 952 F. Supp. 229 (D.D.C. 1997)

. . . Blaekmar, et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 16.02 (4th ed. 1992)(emphasis added). . . .

In SMITH, SMITH, v. UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,, 205 B.R. 226 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997)

. . . Schieber, at 1010, See 1 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 16.02. . . .

E. WHITE, J. A. v. CENTRAL VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION, H. P. Jr. F. F. Jr. P. D. C. W. Jr., 958 F. Supp. 174 (D. Vt. 1996)

. . . the statutory prerequisites for obtaining a shareholder list set forth at Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 11A, § 16.02 . . .

BUTI v. IMPRESSA PEROSA, S. R. L., 935 F. Supp. 458 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not merely to reserve a right in a mark.’ ” 2 McCarthy § 16.02 . . .

A. KERSAVAGE, v. UNITED STATES,, 36 Fed. Cl. 441 (Fed. Cl. 1996)

. . . Chisum, Patents, § 16.02 (2d ed. 1995). . . .

In THRALL, SSN XXX- XX- XXXX FIRST OMNI BANK, N. A. v. THRALL,, 196 B.R. 959 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1996)

. . . See Norton, BANKRUPTCY Law and PRACTICE § 16.02 (1981). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CHERRY, a k a G, a k a, 876 F. Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . designed to preserve the secrecy of government files.” 8 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed. 1994) at ¶ 16.02 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON,, 915 F. Supp. 1146 (D. Kan. 1996)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 16.02[2][c] (1995) (a defendant has no absolute right to obtain the . . .

BRADSHAW v. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORPORATION,, 912 F. Supp. 1088 (N.D. Ill. 1996)

. . . Chisum, Patents § 16.02[4] (1995) (collecting cases). . . .

In G. SCHMIDT, JASTER, v. G. SCHMIDT,, 188 B.R. 36 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1995)

. . . BAP 1990), citing, 1 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 16.02 (1981). See also, Local Loan Co. v. . . .

LABORATORIOS ROLDAN, C. POR A. a v. TEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. a a a a s a A. B. C. E. a a a a a a d b a A. B. C. E., 902 F. Supp. 1555 (S.D. Fla. 1995)

. . . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 16.02(l)(a) at 16-4 & n. 5 (3d ed. 1995 . . . McCarthy, supra, § 16.02(l)(b) at 16-6. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PELLIERE,, 897 F. Supp. 515 (D. Kan. 1995)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 16.02[2][c] (1995) (a defendant has no absolute right to obtain the . . .

SANDERS, v. QUIKSTAK, INC. SANDERS, v. QUIKSTAK, INC., 889 F. Supp. 128 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . See 1 Michael Weinberger, New York Products Liability § 16.02 (1982). . . .

GERMAN v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP. CAISI L. P., 885 F. Supp. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . See Powell on Real Property § 16.02[1] at 16-8. . . .

L. A. GEAR, INC. v. E. S. ORIGINALS, INC., 859 F. Supp. 1294 (C.D. Cal. 1994)

. . . Chisum, Patents § 16.02[4] (1993) [hereinafter Chisum]; Beidler v. . . .

ARES- SERONO, INC. ARS N. V. v. ORGANON INTERNATIONAL B. V., 862 F. Supp. 603 (D. Mass. 1994)

. . . Chisum Patents § 16.02[6] (1993). . . .

OIL, CHEMICAL ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION v. SHELL OIL COMPANY,, 5 F.3d 960 (5th Cir. 1993)

. . . Shell disputes this interpretation and points to the final sentence of paragraph one of article 16.02 . . . Shell argues that article 16.02 expressly exempts from arbitration a dispute over a health and safety . . . recommendations shall not be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures of the Articles of Agreement. 16.02 . . . 16.01 of this Article 16 shall not be construed to waive the Union’s right to negotiate under Section 16.02 . . . The final sentence of paragraph one of article 16.02 provides: Any subject matter upon which negotiations . . .